Tanner v. Ayer, 57941
| Decision Date | 12 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57941,57941 |
| Parties | TANNER v. AYER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gershon, Ruden, Pindar & Olim, Jay E. Loeb, Mose S. Hayes, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Robert L. Pennington, Frederick E. Link, Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, Gary Hill, Atlanta, for appellees.
Plaintiff appellant appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Peachtree Medical Building, Inc., in this action for damages against Peachtree, D. Ray Wakefield and Dr. Darrell Ayer, a tenant of Peachtree and employer of Wakefield. Plaintiff, a seventy-nine year old lady, was injured while attempting to enter Peachtree Medical Building in order to visit her doctor. Plaintiff's daughter drove her mother to the building on the day of the incident when it was raining. Plaintiff alleges that, because of the inclement weather, her daughter drove her to the side entrance of the building located in the building's parking lot which was under cover. However, the record shows that in order for anyone in a vehicle to reach the side entrance, such vehicle must pass the main entrance to the building on a driveway which is covered in the area of said main entrance so as to shelter patrons from the weather. Plaintiff was a frequent visitor to the building and had previously used both the main entrance and the side entrance through which she was attempting access on the day she sustained the injuries for which she seeks damages in this case.
Plaintiff alleges that after being deposited by her daughter, she approached the opaque metal door constituting the side entrance and when she touched the handle of the door, the door was "quickly pushed into her body" by defendant Wakefield who was exiting the building from the same door. Plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries as result of being knocked to the floor of the garage.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant appellee Peachtree was negligent "by maintaining an opaque metal door as its primary means in ingress in said building and only means of ingress from the building's contiguous parking garage" and she further contends that this negligence was "compounded by the failure of said Defendant to post any warning signs on the entry door or adjacent thereto."
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment of defendant Peachtree Medical Building, Inc. Defendants Ayer and Wakefield remain in the case. Plaintiff urges reversal of the trial court's grant of summary judgment contending that genuine issues of material fact remain as to the negligence of Peachtree. It is certainly true that "(t)he duty owed an invitee is one of ordinary care and whether this standard of care has been met is usually a question of fact for the jury except in plain and indisputable cases." Jones v. Monroe Nursing Home, 149 Ga.App. 582, 584, 254 S.E.2d 902, 904 (1979). Neither the presence or absence of negligence should be summarily adjudicated and should be resolved by the trior of facts unless only one conclusion is permissible. Epps Air Service v. DeKalb County, 147 Ga.App. 195, 248 S.E.2d 300 (1978).
However, in the present case plaintiff's assignment of negligence to Peachtree consists only of the contentions that Peachtree should not have had a metal opaque door opening outward into the basement or, in the alternative, that Peachtree should have posted warning signs indicating that the door did open into the basement. There is absolutely no allegation or contention that the door was defective in any way. The actual precipitating cause of plaintiff's injury was, according to plaintiff, the opening of the door by Mr. Wakefield when he "just pushed it on as hard as he could." There being an absence of contention as to defective construction, plaintiff's attempt to predicate negligence upon Peachtree's use of an opaque metal door is without merit. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v. Flagler Co.
...the presence nor absence of negligence should be summarily adjudicated unless only one conclusion is permissible. Tanner v. Ayer, 150 Ga.App. 709, 710, 258 S.E.2d 545. We find that more than one reasonable conclusion is permissible as to whether or not the general contractor, the owners and......
-
Shackelford v. DeKalb Farmer's Market, Inc.
...for her fall under the circumstances of this particular occasion. See Kreiss v. Allatoona Landing, supra. Compare Tanner v. Ayer, 150 Ga.App. 709, 258 S.E.2d 545 (1979). With reference to the day in question, there is no evidence that appellant had ever had prior occasion to step over the w......
-
Pippins v. Breman
...that is said in the majority opinion. However, I feel compelled to concur specially so as to express my belief that Tanner v. Ayer, 150 Ga.App. 709, 258 S.E.2d 545 (1979) cited in Judge Birdsong's dissent is distinguishable from, and does not require affirmance of, the trial court's order i......
-
Hall v. Skate Escape, Ltd.
...conclusion is permissible, and they should be resolved by the trier of fact except in plain and indisputable cases. Tanner v. Ayer, 150 Ga.App. 709, 710, 258 S.E.2d 545. Also, in a motion for summary judgment by a defendant, the burden is on the movant to affirmatively negative plaintiff's ......